Category talk:Pages which need their copyright status checked

In my impression those two categories handle similar problems and possible to be merged. I prefer this because it sounds more mild; I saw many people harden their mind when they heard their contributions were under suspicion of copyvio. Even if they were proved innocence, not every of them seemed happy and lost a favor for project. So I think we are better to avoid causing emotional problems with a mild wording, and it isn't a problem for editors since none of us need to remember this lengthy name, but need only to type {{checkcopyright}}.--Aphaia 11:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've always understood the two to be used for different things. I created the {{copyvio}} template for cases of obvious copyright violation, usually those cases when a page was nothing more than a copy of a website or similar. This was in response to a series of pages being VFD-nominated as copyvio and blanked; I adapted the Wikipedia copyvio template so that we could provide a consistent message for when pages are blanked as copyvio. On the other hand, it's been my thought to use {{checkcopyright}} when a page simply has acquired so many quotes that it's a possible copyright violation, but isn't a direct copy of a source (that is, pages that quote more of a book/film/TV show/etc. than can be considered fair use, but still isn't a blatant copyright violation). I've seen the distinction as, {{copyvio}} is for obvious, blatant, copy/paste copyvio, while {{checkcopyright}} is for pages that simply are overquoting.

While it would certainly be possible to combine the two (and their categories), I think we'd lose an important distinction between the two classes. (I find it generally easier to trim down an "organically-developed" copyvio (which I'd have tagged with {{checkcopyright}}, and often have some level of formatting) than a copy/paste of a web page copyvio (which I'd have blanked and tagged {{copyvio}}), and are often basically raw dumps of data). —LrdChaos (talk)

While I still think normally we are better to use soften words, your creation is not so much tested, and worthy to be experimented. I concur with you to have two for a while to see if this paralelism works well. --Aphaia 07:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)